Scott Walker: "Min. wage serves no purpose"

[Conservative65]

Also, when a giant multi-national company wants to buy up every single shop in town, but the govt doesn't let them, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?

Not when the existence of a monopoly itself, other than in certain areas such as a power company, throws supply and demand out of whack simply by existing.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

 

[Conservative65]

Walmart is reaping the profits from taxpayer subsidized employees. Why does Walmart deserve to have it's payroll subsidized by taxpayers?

I have a solution. Let Walmart continue paying the employees as they are since the wages are equivalent to the skills needed to do those jobs, stop all welfare programs, then the good intentioned, bleeding hearts can prove they are as compassionate as they claim by giving the ones they think need it their money.

We already are, in an organized way. Sorry we're not going back to poorhouses and potters' fields like the "good old days". RW idiocy.

Thanks! You just made my point to derideo, paying the employees more money is the choice of government, not Walmart. Ouch! Undone by your Homey...

The problem is that what Walmart pays is none of the government's business. Your problem is you think someone that makes a low wage because they have low skills should even be subsidized by the government. No one deserves another person's money. When the government sets a minimum wage or provides handouts funded by taxpayers, it tells a business how much of what they have should go to an employee and how much of what an actual taxpayer earns should go to some leech. Neither are the place of the government.

Got it, LOL, I'm a libertarian who supports the welfare state. You be trippin, dude...

Then you're not a true Libertarian. Libertarians don't support such programs. You're best described as a bleeding heart Liberal that has no clue what you are.

 

[Conservative65]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

 

[Conservative65]

When a bank uses up people's savings and then goes bankrupt and did so because of a complete lack of regulation, doesn't this mean that "supply and demand is out of whack"?

Not unless those putting their savings in the bank weren't aware of what the bank was doing. If someone puts their money into some form of investment that, because of a higher risk, can bring a higher return and it goes bad, they made a choice to do what was being supplied. If the investment was being done illegally, yes.

 

[Conservative65]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

You might be doing that but I actually offer skills that my employer deems is worth significantly more than that. Those types of jobs are for people who provide nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

When CEO's are making 600xs their average employee, not only is it unhealthy for our economy, but its a sure sign that people are not getting paid what they are worth.

 

[SwimExpert]

I am not saying I know what you think, I'm saying I don't. You seem to be switching sides as frequently as you swim laps from one end of the pool to the other and back again. Maybe you could come up with one position and stick to it?

No, I've been consistent through and through. I suspect that you have become stricken with partisan blinders, inserting things I have not endorsed, and baffling over things I have that don't agree with ideological litmus tests. My positions tend to reject the confines of partisan talking points, in favor of maintaining a conservative approach to real world problems and realities. So let me explain it again for you....

Raising the minimum wage will not solve any problems. It will only cause prices to increase, leaving everyone exactly where they were before. The single biggest factor in wages is negotiation, which is something very much in the control of each individual. The primary reason wages are stagnant is because people simply settle for low wages. Instead of legislating a minimum wage increase, people should take more responsibility for their own wages, and the primary front for that battle is the negotiation table not only because it is the most often ignored avenue, but also because it is the most accessible avenue available to each and every single person. Believing that an employer will simply give you "what you're worth" is a fatal flaw. They will give you what you will settle for. Getting "what you're worth" out of an employer is your responsibility. Expecting it to simply be given to you is an entitlement mentality.

If the government is going to take any action to try improving wages and reducing disparity, the first action should be to address illegal immigration and labor. Illegal labor has a substantially negative impact on the economy, including wage depression and contributing to unemployment. Eliminating welfare would redirect the burden to low wage workers to find a way to achieve a better wage at work through market mechanisms. If welfare were eliminated, bottom wages would inevitably go up because eventually hungry bellies will become too disgruntled to settle for low wages. Or, if we don't have the stomach (no pun intended) for that, charging back welfare costs to employers would at least return the burden of paying employees back to the employers who are increasingly actively abusing welfare availability of their employees as a means to avoid low morale turning into revolts. Raising minimum wage is 100% incapable of addressing disparity, because it only raises the bottom and the costs will end up being passed along to protect the elevation of the top. A novel approach would be to tether top and bottom tier pay so that the "minimum" wage a company could pay would be proportional to the highest level it pays out. This, at least, would actually address the issue of inflating disparity.

 

[Conservative65]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

When CEO's are making 600xs their average employee, not only is it unhealthy for our economy, but its a sure sign that people are not getting paid what they are worth.

When someone worth $2/hour demands $15/hour it's not healthy for the economy. When the person whose skills involve nothing more than learning "do you want fries with that" takes on more responsibility and actually provides something just about anyone could do, they might get paid more.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I'm currently working on a 4th. That means I've spent thousand upon thousands of more hours getting to where I am than the minimum wage worker has done. See, to do what I do, skills have to constantly be upgraded and improved. The broom pusher of today has the very same skills as the broom pusher did 50 years ago.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

“I want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage,” Walker said, adding, “The way you do that is not by (setting) an arbitrary amount by the state.”
Does that mean the first-term Republican governor opposes a minimum wage on principle?

During Tuesday's meeting with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'sEditorial Board, Walker was asked to clarify his position. He didn't hesitate.

“I'm not going to repeal it,” Walker said. “But I don't think it serves a purpose because we're debating then about what the lowest levels are at. I want people to make, like I said the other night, two or three times that.”

Walker said he wants to help people get the skills they need to find careers that pay many times the current minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

“The jobs I focus on, the programs we put in place, the training we put in place is not for people to get minimum wage jobs,” he said.

Liberal groups and labor organizations immediately went on the attack, tearing into the governor for saying he doesn’t think the minimum wage “serves a purpose.”

First out of the box was American Bridge — a Democratic Super PAC — which had video of the quote posted before the Editorial Board had concluded.

Then Walker came under fire from his campaign foe, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke. She has said she wants to raise the minimum wage in three stages to $10.10 an hour.

“Well, I disagree with it entirely,” Burke told Journal Sentinel reporter Bill Glauber in response to Walker’s comment earlier in the day. “It's important that people who are working fulltime are able to support themselves without government assistance. That's just sort of common sense.”

She said that reducing the number of people on the public dole would reduce the state budget and improve the economy, adding that many business owners she knows supporting increasing the minimum wage.

“I want to make sure people are able to have the pride of having a full-time job and supporting themselves,” Burke said.

A number of liberal websites — such as Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post and Think Progress — jumped on Walker’s comment.

Finally, a top labor official tried to take the governor to task.

“For nearly a century, American workers have relied on minimum wage protections,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Now is not the time to take away these important laws,” she continued. “Now is the time to raise the minimum wage so that people who get up and go to work every day can have a decent standard of living.”

This is the second remark from the debate for which Walker has come under strong criticism.

In the first, the governor said, “We don’t have a jobs problem in this state. We have a work problem.”

Burke and other Democrats ripped the statement, suggesting he is ignoring the fact that Wisconsin trails other states in job growth.

Walker countered in a 30-second ad earlier this week.

He has said the statement at the debate concerned the so-called “skills gap,” the notion that good jobs in the state aren’t being filled because of a lack of trained workers.

“Mary Burke is distorting my comments on jobs,” Walker said in the commercial. “It’s no wonder. The tax-and-spend policies she supports drove out good-paying manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.”

The two candidates for the state’s top office will square off again Friday, sparking a second round of debate — and TV ads — over what is meant and said.​

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

 

[kaz]

I have a solution. Let Walmart continue paying the employees as they are since the wages are equivalent to the skills needed to do those jobs, stop all welfare programs, then the good intentioned, bleeding hearts can prove they are as compassionate as they claim by giving the ones they think need it their money.

We already are, in an organized way. Sorry we're not going back to poorhouses and potters' fields like the "good old days". RW idiocy.

Thanks! You just made my point to derideo, paying the employees more money is the choice of government, not Walmart. Ouch! Undone by your Homey...

The problem is that what Walmart pays is none of the government's business. Your problem is you think someone that makes a low wage because they have low skills should even be subsidized by the government. No one deserves another person's money. When the government sets a minimum wage or provides handouts funded by taxpayers, it tells a business how much of what they have should go to an employee and how much of what an actual taxpayer earns should go to some leech. Neither are the place of the government.

Got it, LOL, I'm a libertarian who supports the welfare state. You be trippin, dude...

Then you're not a true Libertarian. Libertarians don't support such programs. You're best described as a bleeding heart Liberal that has no clue what you are.

I don't support those programs. I oppose all redistribution of wealth, particularly at the Federal level. What is wrong with you? You are either not reading the posts or you're not comprehending them.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

If you think someone should get a wage above the skills to do the job simply based on some bullshit concept of living wage, you're full of shit. I'm not anti-worker. I'm all for the worker getting paid what the job is worth not because they breath and have a heartbeat.

When CEO's are making 600xs their average employee, not only is it unhealthy for our economy, but its a sure sign that people are not getting paid what they are worth.

When someone worth $2/hour demands $15/hour it's not healthy for the economy. When the person whose skills involve nothing more than learning "do you want fries with that" takes on more responsibility and actually provides something just about anyone could do, they might get paid more.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I'm currently working on a 4th. That means I've spent thousand upon thousands of more hours getting to where I am than the minimum wage worker has done. See, to do what I do, skills have to constantly be upgraded and improved. The broom pusher of today has the very same skills as the broom pusher did 50 years ago.

LOL, sure thing.

50 years ago, a broom pusher could support his family. We had our largest growth when there was less inequality.

 

[kaz]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

No, we should keep them in Latin America if they can't afford to live here on what they can earn. We should not force employers to pay arbitrary wages, and welfare isn't a job for government, it's a job for Y-O-U. Charity is not an act that can be performed with other people's money. Sucks, huh?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

No, we should keep them in Latin America if they can't afford to live here on what they can earn. We should not force employers to pay arbitrary wages, and welfare isn't a job for government, it's a job for Y-O-U. Charity is not an act that can be performed with other people's money. Sucks, huh?

Who's going to pick our fruit? American's won't pick 40,000 lbs of fruit a day for $40.

 

[Conservative65]

He's being under attack for saying stuff that is completely true.

Link:
Scott Walker says he doesn t believe minimum wage serves a purpose - JSOnline

Does the min. wage serve a purpose or should companies be allowed to pay what the market dictates?

Are you kidding? The way companies are today, they'd be trying to pay people $2 an hour, instead of the minimum wage. Of course it serves a purpose.

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

I'm curious, how much would you want to get paid for picking 40,000 pounds of fruit or vegetables?

What you and the rest of you living wage morons don't get is that I know that such an unskilled job pays an unskilled level low wage. That's why, when I had the opportunity, I did EVERYTHING I could so that wouldn't be a likelihood. I don't currently make roughly 6x/hour, although I'm on salary, more than the unskilled worker. I have something to offer because I did what I needed to do so I could.

Picking fruit is an unskilled job. Do you think a person who picks 40,000 pounds of fruit a day, should only be paid $2 an hour? Do they not deserve to live? And should tax payers have to make up the difference when these low paid workers can't afford to feed themselves?

The weight you use is virtually impossible.

I actually do believe that unskilled activity is worth $2/hour.

You seem to want wages based on existence not skills.

Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidized someone whose skills are so low. That my skills warrant much more than that doesn't mean, by default, I should have to subsidize someone whose skills don't do that. YOU are more than welcome to voluntarily do it if you think their wages are too low. That way you can prove your compassion rather than thinking it comes from seeing how much you can get someone else to have taken in taxes.

 

[kaz]

If the person has $2/hour skills and doing a job that's worth $2/hour, that's what they should be getting paid.

You're full of shit. With your anti-worker attitude, we'll all be working in China mines for nothing. LOL!

Good Gawd.

That makes no sense, China will send us cheap stuff, so they can hire us for nothing. What happened to all the money consumers saved by buying the same thing for less? We became broke by paying less for the same thing? You didn't think that one through

 

[kaz]

Who's going to pick our fruit? American's won't pick 40,000 lbs of fruit a day for $40.

Ding, ding, ding! Which is why they will have to pay more... I mean duh.